Siberry's Application No. 2 (Hazel)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] NIQB 147 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 04 December 2008 |
1
Neutral Citation No.: [2008] NIQB 147 Ref:
McCL7331
(approved by the Court for handing down) Delivered:
04/12/08
2008 No. 106668/01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Siberry’s Application (2) [2008] NIQB 147
AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
BY HAZEL SIBERRY (2)
__________
HEADNOTE
Coroner's inquest – Senior Coroner for Northern Ireland – Prisoner Ombudsman for
Northern Ireland – Coroners Act (NI) 1959 – Coroners (Practice and Procedure)
Rules (NI) 1963 – Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 2 of the Convention –
Wednesbury principle – fairness to directly affected interested parties – Senior
Coroner's discretion – rules of evidence – opinion evidence – expertise of Prisoner
Ombudsman – judicial review remedies – discretion.
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] By this application for judicial review, Hazel Siberry (hereinafter "the
Applicant"), a general medical practitioner by profession, challenges a decision
of the Senior Coroner for Northern Ireland (hereinafter "the Senior Coroner")
relating to the forthcoming inquest hearings concerning the death of Ronald
William Davey ("the deceased") who, then aged twenty-four years, suffered his
demise on 7th October 2005 when an inmate of Her Majesty's Prison
Magilligan. The other protagonist in this matter is the Prisoner Ombudsman
for Northern Ireland ("the Prisoner Ombudsman"), on whose behalf submissions
were made at the initial hearing when the court granted leave to apply for
judicial review. A written submission was subsequently provided and two
affidavits were filed.
2
[2] An invitation by the court to another potentially interested party, the
bereaved family of the deceased, also represented at the initial hearing, to
provide a written submission and such affidavit evidence as might be
considered desirable was declined in the event. It is appropriate to highlight
that this stance was taken on the basis that, in the circumstances, the legal
representatives of the bereaved family were of the view that they had nothing
to add to the written submission on behalf of the Prisoner Ombudsman.
Having regard to the trenchant observation of Lord Hoffmann in In Re E (a
child) [2008] UKHL 66 that a third party intervention is "… of no assistance if it
merely repeats points which the Appellant or Respondent has already made"
(paragraph [3]), I consider that this was a proper and responsible course to
take. In the event, the arguments on behalf of the Prisoner Ombudsman,
perhaps unavoidably, mirrored closely those of the Senior Coroner. I would
add, however, that some additional ground was covered in the Prisoner
Ombudsman's written submission and, further, the affidavit evidence
emanating from this source served to ensure that the court was more fully
informed about certain aspects of the factual framework.
[3] In brief compass, the evidence establishes that the deceased suffered
from epilepsy and was in receipt of medication accordingly. On 23rd June
2005, he was transferred from Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry to Her
Majesty's Prison Magilligan (hereinafter "Magilligan"). It appears that his last
reported epileptic seizure had occurred in July 2003. The Applicant provided
services in Magilligan as a locum general practitioner. In this capacity, she
attended the deceased on 24th June 2005. The outcome of this consultation
was a reduction in the dosage of one of the two prescribed anti-epileptic
medications being taken by the deceased. Further doctor/prisoner
consultations followed on 14th July, 21st July and 11th August 2005. On 17th
September 2005, the deceased suffered an epileptic seizure, precipitating an
examination by one Dr. Thompson, another locum general practitioner, two
days later. On 7th October 2005, the deceased was found dead in a bath. It
would appear that he drowned after having suffered a further epileptic
seizure.
II THE INPUGNED DECISION
[4] One of the consequences of the death was an investigation of its
circumstances by the Prisoner Ombudsman and a resulting report, which I
shall outline in greater detail presently. The report is dated 23rd October 2007.
Its contents form the background to the decision of the Senior Coroner under
challenge in these proceedings. The origins of the impugned decision can be
traced to a preliminary hearing conducted by the Senior Coroner on 14th May
2008. The value of such hearings is appreciated by interested parties and their
legal representatives throughout this jurisdiction. In the present case, the
preliminary hearing and its outworkings served to expose a contentious issue
of some significance well in advance of the scheduled inquest hearings. In
3
granting leave to apply for judicial review, I ruled that the determination of
this issue in advance of the inquest hearings would be preferable to a legal
challenge arising either in the course of the hearings or in their aftermath.
The benefit thus secured is that, as regards the matter of controversy, the
findings ultimately returned by the jury will be robust and beyond challenge.
I acknowledged at the permission stage, and hereby reiterate, that
intervention by the High Court in this kind of context will be the exception
rather than the rule.
[5] In advance of the preliminary hearing to be conducted on 14th May
2008, the Applicant's legal representatives furnished a written submission to
the Senior Coroner. This submission addressed the issue of the evidence to be
adduced at the forthcoming inquest hearings and, specifically, the prospect of
the Prisoner Ombudsman attesting to the contents of his investigation report.
The concluding paragraph of this submission advocated as follows:
"Therefore the Coroner is respectfully invited to consider
carefully the extent, if any, to which the Ombudsman can
give legitimate evidence of facts (as opposed to opinions,
conclusions and inferences drawn from the facts as he
viewed then). It is submitted that all the relevant facts can
be properly explored without excursion into the views
expressed by the Ombudsman".
Simultaneously, a representation to like effect was made on behalf of the
aforementioned Dr. Thompson in a letter from his solicitors to the Senior
Coroner. They contended that the Prisoner Ombudsman's report, in complete
form, should not be placed before the inquest jury. A further representation
in writing was made on behalf of the Northern Ireland Prison Service,
addressing the same topic, in a letter dated 22nd May 2008 from Ms McCart of
the Crown Solicitor's Office, who suggested that the Prisoner Ombudsman
"… should not be a witness at the inquest and in many respects his investigation and
report has pre-empted the findings of the inquest jury, may have trespassed on the
jurisdiction of the inquest and that no final report from the Prisoner Ombudsman
should have issued until after the inquest has been completed". Contra, on behalf of
the bereaved family, it was submitted that the Prisoner Ombudsman should
be permitted to attest to his investigation and its conclusions, which evidence
could be questioned by all interested parties.
[6] Against this background, the impugned decision materialised. It is
expressed in a series of letters written by the Senior Coroner. Firstly, by letter
dated 20th May 2008 to Dr Thompson's solicitors, he stated:
"In relation to the evidence of the Prisoner Ombudsman,
my approach would be not to provide each juror with a
copy of the entire report. However, the Prisoner
Ombudsman would be asked to give evidence based on it".
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
C (A Person under a disability) by D, Her Mother and Next Friend and The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
...as to the admissibility in evidence of any aspect of the Ombudsman’s report in light of the decision of McCloskey J in Re Hazel Siberry [2008] NIQB 147. Without in any sense disavowing or seeking to undermine the findings and recommendations of the 9 Ombudsman or to gloss over the unreserve......
-
Re Siberry's Application
...relied on by an investigator with no medical expertise were to give evidence at an inquest, the investigator shoul Neutral Citation : [2008] NIQB 147 Court and Reference: High Court of Justice, Northern Ireland, McCL7331 Judge : McCloskey J Re Siberry's Application Appearances : S Green fo......
-
Steponaviciene's (Jura) Application v One of the Coroners for Northern Ireland
...the Coroner, with Mr Michael Chambers of counsel) in this context of one of its earlier decisions, Re Siberry’s Application (2) [2008] NIQB 147 at [10] – [22] especially. Given the present context I highlight ju st one passage from the judgment, at [18]: “There is one particular matter whic......
-
Jordan’s (Hugh) Application and in the matter of a decision taken by the Coroner of Northern Ireland
...Windsor Securities Ltd [2004] NIQB 38 per Girvan J. [12] Mr McDonald did not seek to challenge the decision of McCloskey J in Re Siberry [2008] NIQB 147 with regard to the irrelevance of opinion evidence from the Prison Ombudsman with which I agree. See also Sherrard v Jacob [1965] N.I. 151......
Request a trial to view additional results